Exactly, that is what I am assuming. However, my question is. Can I assume that the PG number will affect the Max available space that a pool will be able to use? On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:09 PM Anthony D'Atri <anthony.datri@gmail.com> wrote:
Assuming that the pool is replicated, 512 PGs is pretty low if this is the only substantial pool on the cluster. When you do `ceph osd df`, if this is the only substantial pool, the PGS column at right would average around 12 or 13 which is suuuuper low.
On Feb 13, 2025, at 11:40 AM, Work Ceph <work.ceph.user.mailing@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, the bucket that represents the new host is under the ROOT bucket as the others. Also, the OSDs are in the right/expected bucket.
I am guessing that the problem is the number of PGs. I have 120 OSDs across all hosts, and I guess that 512 PGS, which is what the pool is using, is not enough. I did not change it yet, because I wanted to understand the effect on PG number in Ceph pool usable volume.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:03 PM Anthony D'Atri <anthony.datri@gmail.com> wrote:
Does the new host show up under the proper CRUSH bucket? Do its OSDs? Send `ceph osd tree` please.
> Hello guys, > Let's say I have a cluster with 4 nodes with 24 SSDs each, and a single > pool that consumes all OSDs of all nodes. After adding another host, I > noticed that no extra space was added. Can this be a result of the > number > of PGs I am using? > > I mean, when adding more hosts/OSDs, should I always consider increasing > the number of PGs from a pool? >
ceph osd tree
shows all up and with correct weight?
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io